From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <7b047d716a78747329b138188f13d428@terzarima.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Van Jacobsen's network stack restructure
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
Date: Thu,  2 Feb 2006 13:37:09 +0000
In-Reply-To: <e0ac85f90601312028w2b5d8ac3uc6ab5db0e2e3cea@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ef6d8cb0-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> i don't know if his methods have any application to Plan 9, since the
> Plan 9 IP stack doesn't seem to have the lineage of the linux and bsd
> stacks. i am not intimate with the IP stack code, but it might bear a
> lookover.

i think there might be a nice irony: i understood that a variant of plan 9 (brazil)
did put the networking code in /ip outside the kernel,
but it returned inside to improve performance.
of course, the structure was a little different from VJ's suggestion.

it seems to me that one could make many of the improvements inside the kernel
without putting the code in libraries (although there's an implication that there might
be a choice of implementations for different applications).
one disadvantage of the library approach in the unix environment is that
you're once again back having to know which `access method' to use,
to pass the file descriptor or handle to the right library.
i might easily have misunderstood something though.